| 1989 | Aristotle on Substance |
| App | p.252 | 17006 | Prime matter has no place in Aristotle's theories, and passages claiming it are misread |
| Full Idea: I argue that prime matter has no place in Aristotle's elemental theory. ..References to prime matter are found in Aristotle's work because his theory was thought to need the doctrine. If I am right, these passages will all admit of another interpretation. | |||
| From: Mary Louise Gill (Aristotle on Substance [1989], App) | |||
| A reaction: If correct, this strikes me as important for the history of ideas, because scholastics got themselves in a right tangle over prime matter. See Pasnau on it. It pushed the 17th century into corpuscularianism. |
| Intro | p.3 | 16083 | Aristotelian matter seriously threatens the intrinsic unity and substantiality of its object |
| Full Idea: On the interpretation of Aristotelian matter that I shall propose, matter seriously threatens the intrinsic unity, and hence the substantiality, of the object to which it contributes. | |||
| From: Mary Louise Gill (Aristotle on Substance [1989], Intro) | |||
| A reaction: Presumably the thought is that if an object is form+matter (hylomorphism), then forms are essentially unified, but matter is essentially unified and sloppy. |
| Ch.1 | p.26 | 16093 | Prime matter is actually nothing and potentially everything (or potentially an element) |
| Full Idea: Prime matter is supposed to be actually nothing and potentially everything or, at any rate, potentially the simplest bodies - earth, water, air and fire. | |||
| From: Mary Louise Gill (Aristotle on Substance [1989], Ch.1) | |||
| A reaction: The view that the four elements turn out to be prime matter is distinctive of Gill's approach. Prime matter sounds like quark soup in the early universe. |